Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1887-02-10

Cd documents. all intended to mislead repre-
sentetives as TO the true merits of the case
and its legal aspects He referred to the Oft
repe,ted argument of those gentlemen
that Portland is seeking u eNaue
her lust obligations. He said that
there was no city in M zine or IN the country
that felt prouder of her record than Portland,
none whose obligations are more falthIaiiy
kept, none whose bonds stand higher IN the
market; and that is the best evidence OF
whether she evsdes or desires or seeks
to evsde her obligations.
The truth was that these gentlemen would
not dare 10 maintain that there was con
tract. He recited the acts of separation of
the two towns, and the reasons therefor; the
interests of the two sections beirg 40 dissim-
liar He laid stress upon the point that The
Inhabitants of Portland who wished to be
separated were in the minority, and there
fore could not prevent the action of the town
of Falmouth in imposing these conditions on
them as a bvsis of their consent to the separ-
alton. All the facts in regard to the sepsra-
ton 90 to prove that iheIe was no contract
on the part of ,the inhabitants of the Neck.
The general court of Massachusetts did not
dictate anv agreement; they did not accede
to the wishes OF either side. They simply
d. cded that Portland should from time to
time repair and amend these bridges.
He admitted that circumstances st the
time of this enactment JUSTIFIED the lmposi-
ton of the maintenance of these bridges on
Portland Bat circumstances have changed.
they are 10 longer the great highways that
benefit Portland, but are situated on IN the
heart of other towns.
Mr.. Fogg quoted authorities from Dillon
on corporations, the standard authority oil
the United States on that subject. to show
that such legislat We ensctments as this orlgI'
nal one could not be he d in the nature of
u contract He asserted that the agreement
of 1852 between the city of Portland and the
town of Westbrook. was simply 10 fine the
boundaries of this bridge, Tnls bridge was
then very rude log structure. The city
OF Portland has since built solid stone abut-
ments, and filled it in with stone. gravel,
granite, until there is only space of 40 feet
of planking under when the tide can h)w,
the rest being solid road-bed; and now the
town of Deerng still wanted Portland to
maintain that 40 feet, when the former could
do it at cot fifty per cent below the cost
to the city of Portland.
He asked that this burden be taken from
Portland in common justice, in due regard 10
the public safrty,-for it is impossible for
Portland to give that proper supervision to
these bridges which they require. One Is 81
miles of from the Limits OF the city and the
olher five, and vet these towns ask Portland
10 maintain them.
Mr. Noble of Lewi.ton said that the gen.
tlemen of the House had to leave out OF the
question all sympathy, and look at it in its
equitable and legal light. lie asserted that
| there was a contract between Portland, West
brook and Deering. and the constitutions of
the UOited States for5id the legislature from
impairing the obligations of a contract and
disturb vested rights by an act on its part.
Tie declared the same to be true OF the
agrs ement between Portland and Westbrook,
December, 1852 He cited the decision in
the case OF the town of Bowdoinham, report
ed in 9TH Maine.
Mr.. Wiswell of Ellsworth directed his
argument simply to the legal aspect OF the
case. He knew nothing of its merits. lie
LAID it down as an incontrovertiole argument
that that which the legislature of Massachu-
sets had right to enact 100 years ago thu S
legislature had right to undo. Ii was a
legislative enactment, and no more. He fdid
not think any one would maintain for min
ute thai 1t was a contract
Mr. TALBOT of East Machiss, believed Port
land had received more benefit from these
bridges than the other towns. He thought
Portland was morally bound to st and by this
| obligation OF hers to maintain these bridges
Like the eminent poet of England he believed
IN tact there's nothing that preserves its
youth, AS tar as l know, but a tree and
| TRUTH And he hoped that Portland would
not sally the glory of her centennial celebra-
tlon, but would stand up to the truth and
validity OF this agreement.
Mr.. Woodman of Westbrook. said
MIR. Speaker and Gentlemen of the House
Portland tells US there is no contract her.
oy she Is Obliged TO take care of these bridge,
Ii SO, why does she petition to be relieved
don't care oy what name you call II,
whether contract, agreement, Obligation, or
what not, there has been something for the
last 100 years whereby she has taken care of
| these bridges, and the same reason exists to-
day. But they tel time and circumstan-
| ces have changed since then. [ admit il, but
| IN any comparison that have been able TO
| make lind the change has all been in favor
OF Portland. Before this division was made
Falmouth included what is now Falmouth,
Portland, Deerlng and Westbrook. Portland
at this time had about four ninths of the pop
| ulat'on and about the same proportion of the
| wealth of the whole town. Now she has
| three times the population and seven times
the wealth. Then, again, Portland says she
mas many expt nslve bridges of her own to
| support. But she does not support all Of her
own bridges, as the county comesain aud re-
| lieves her of Portland bridge, 50 called. OF
| which Westbrook has to pay her share.
Tnen, again, 1t costs more for Westbrook to
support her roads and bridges than il does
Portland for hers, according to valuation.
Portland says We are rich towns | tail To
see why we should pay any part of Portland's
| liabilities on that account
hope this legislature will not allow Port.
land to shift her respons bllites on to her
| nelghboring towns without fair equivalent
| This Is all We ask, and TINS VIC think we are
| in justice entitled to
Mr.. Harrington of Norriegewock incurred
of the eentleaian from Ellsworth whether he
had given his opinion in tnis case in the
light OF the 9th Maine decision referred to by
the gentleman from Lewiston.
MIR. Wlswell of Ellsworth said he had not
but would be glad 10 read the decision.
Mr.. Dawson of Greenville said a good
many members desired to inform themselves
on the question aud he moved that the mat
ter be postponed until Tuesday.
Mr.. Looney of Portland moved TO substi-
tute Friday of this week, rs Tuesday had
several assignments.
The motion to POSTPONE was lost
MIR. DIckey attached great Importance m
the majority report. He thought these towns
towns ought to take care of their bridges the
sams as other towns did,